Am I ******* invisible

Soup said:

Hi all
Was cycling today with the eldest (11) was following
him at a distance of about 20 yards the better to shout,
don't panic,change gear, look behind you etc. . We were on
the main road (Lanark road just after Juniper green but before
Gillespie cross roads, Edinburgh) he went past a side street
with a car on it the car let him past and didn't try to intimidate him.
I was just thinking what a nice person when, **** SHE PULLED
OUT IN FRONT OF ME, luckily I had my head on a swivel so
knew there was nothing immediately behind me so I slammed on
the anchors all the time shouting to my son to wait for me swerving
but with no room to shoot passed the front of her as there was
oncoming traffic.(bit of a heart stopper when you realise you are
responsible for someone apart from you). Managed to only just
hit (hit is too strong a word I was barely moving when the car
stopped me)her car (no damage apart from five years taken
off my life)
Wasn't wearing stealth kit and the bike I was on I won in a
competition so it is flame red with Coca~Cola emblazoned on
it (V-hard to miss)

You have just experienced a classic SMIDSY. Try riding something much
larger, much louder, with a whopping headlight and wear a yellow Sam
Brown. They still can't see you.

--
Andy Hewitt ** FAF#1, (Ex-OSOS#5) - FJ1200 ABS
Honda Concerto 16v: Windows free zone (Mac G5 Dual Processor)
http://www.thehewitts.plus.com - now online

"Soup" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Hi all
Was cycling today with the eldest (11) was following
him at a distance of about 20 yards the better to shout,
don't panic,change gear, look behind you etc. . We were on
the main road (Lanark road just after Juniper green but before
Gillespie cross roads, Edinburgh) he went past a side street
with a car on it the car let him past and didn't try to intimidate him.
I was just thinking what a nice person when, **** SHE PULLED
OUT IN FRONT OF ME, luckily I had my head on a swivel so
knew there was nothing immediately behind me so I slammed on
the anchors all the time shouting to my son to wait for me swerving
but with no room to shoot passed the front of her as there was
oncoming traffic.(bit of a heart stopper when you realise you are
responsible for someone apart from you). Managed to only just
hit (hit is too strong a word I was barely moving when the car
stopped me)her car (no damage apart from five years taken
off my life)
Wasn't wearing stealth kit and the bike I was on I won in a
competition so it is flame red with Coca~Cola emblazoned on
it (V-hard to miss)
--
Yours S. addy not usable (not that you would try it) ( )
Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant! / \
www.killies.co.uk/forums/index.php

Did the driver issue the formal SMIDY apology and a hand wave, or just drive
off?

Quoted message said:

Soup popped his head over the parapet,saw what was going on and said

Quoted message said:

Did the driver issue the formal SMIDY apology and a hand wave, or
just drive off?

Was pretty much non vocal I got the sheepish look and the 'sorry'
gesture, was only when I was away down the road that I was
thinking of all the witty remarks (along with getting the shakes).
Actually came of the road and went down stairs to "the water of
Leith walkway" (longer but no traffic).

--
Yours S. addy not usable (not that you would try it) ( )
Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant! / \
www.killies.co.uk/forums/index.php

Oh, they see you alright. However, they think either you will be doing
2MPH or that as a driver they have automatic priority and it is
entirely up to you to avoid being run down. This misconception is
supported by the courts who almost universally accept that claiming 'I
didn't see the cyclist' amounts to an automatic 'get out of jail free'
card, even when they have killed someone. Further the courts hold that
most drivers who kill or maim have simply suffered a 'momentary
lapse'. I.e. rather then being responsible for their own actions they
have been the unfortunate victim of fortune and as such may be
entirely absolved from any blame. Often this is still the case when
that 'momentary lapse' would be better described as quite wilful
dangerous driving. Perhaps if drivers knew that the faced something
more the a £100 fine for killing someone in such circumstances they
just might wait a moment longer to let you pass...

I believe that motorists don't actually register cyclists, as they're
looking for cars, not bikes.
The University of Illinois have done quite a bit of research on this
phenonomon, Inattentional Blindness. You're so focussed on looking for one
thing, you don't see all the other things going on around you.
There's a famous video demonstrating this effect where people are passing a
basketball to each other.....I won't spoil it, but suffice to say I was
fooled.
http://viscog.beckman.uiuc.edu/djs_lab/overviewIB.html

M

On Mon, 07 Jun 2004 07:28:07 GMT someone who may be "Soup" <[email hidden]>
wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Was pretty much non vocal I got the sheepish look and the 'sorry'
gesture,

Only being able to stop yourself with your foot tends to leave them
with more permanently sorry, as they have to remove the foot shaped
dent from their door. Of course they claim this is your fault. The
dent is also far more important than your life, a fact the courts
will be only too happy to confirm.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.

Mucco said:

I believe that motorists don't actually register cyclists, as they're
looking for cars, not bikes.

Agreed. The one time I've actually been knocked off, the motorist was
waiting to enter a roundabout around which I was circulating. We made
eye contact, and I remember thinking "good, he's seen me" before he
drove into my rear wheel.

There was lots of other traffic, and visibility at this roundabout entry
isn't brilliant: I guess I just fell off the bottom of his brain's
"important things I have seen" list...

--
Mark.

Mark Tranchant said:

Quoted message said:

I believe that motorists don't actually register cyclists, as they're
looking for cars, not bikes.

Quoted message said:

Agreed. The one time I've actually been knocked off, the motorist was
waiting to enter a roundabout around which I was circulating. We made
eye contact, and I remember thinking "good, he's seen me" before he
drove into my rear wheel.

I was recently knocked off my bike (at least I believe this is what
happebed, I don't remember at the moment, I need to talk to PC Plod about
it).

It happened at a roundabout, I'm wondering if this may have happened here.

And no I wasn't wearing a helmet - many people have "tutted" me for this.
--
Chris Johns ([email hidden])

"Chris Johns" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Mark Tranchant said:

Quoted message said:

I believe that motorists don't actually register cyclists, as they're
looking for cars, not bikes.

Quoted message said:

Agreed. The one time I've actually been knocked off, the motorist was
waiting to enter a roundabout around which I was circulating. We made
eye contact, and I remember thinking "good, he's seen me" before he
drove into my rear wheel.

I was recently knocked off my bike (at least I believe this is what
happebed, I don't remember at the moment, I need to talk to PC Plod about
it).

It happened at a roundabout, I'm wondering if this may have happened here.

And no I wasn't wearing a helmet - many people have "tutted" me for this.

Please please please dont't go there.

Quoted message said:

--
Chris Johns ([email hidden])

Soup said:

Who said that?

-dan

--
"please make sure that the person is your friend before you confirm"

Soup popped his head over the parapet,saw what was going on and said

Quoted message said:

Soup said:

Who said that?

-dan

rofl
--
Yours S. addy not usable (not that you would try it) ( )
Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant! / \
www.killies.co.uk/forums/index.php

Speaking as someone who has a first class degree in Psychology I feel
it very important that we don't overstate the value of such research.
As with much psychological research what can be shown in an
experimental set up may have very little validity in the real world.

Also we need to give due regard to driver behaviour in other
circumstances where conspicuity is not an issue. For example, over 70%
of drivers will quite deliberately 'cut up' a cyclist at pinch point
and many will move out to overtake a cyclist (proving they have 'seen'
them) then turn immediately left across their path. In such cases
whether or not a driver has 'seen' a cyclist is not an issue, they
have. What is more relevant is their failure to act appropriately. A
similar 'failure to act appropriately' may be expected to have ocurred
in situations where a driver has failed to 'give way' to a cyclist at
a junction.

Again, if cyclists were really so hard to 'see' why are so few
cyclists run down from behind?

Look at countries such as Holland and Denmark where the casualty rate
for cyclists is a fraction of that in the UK, yet cyclists there ride
with much less discipline then those in the UK (riding one handed
whilst carrying an umbrella and ones girlfriend side saddle on the
rear rack is considered quite cool in Amsterdam). Even in countries
such as Holland cars and cyclists mix a lot of the time, especially in
towns where most crashes occur. Are we suppose that Dutch and Danish
drivers have better eyesight the British ones?

Again I never fail to ‘see' cyclists. Does this reflect the acuity of
my visual system or my own ATTITUDE towards cyclists as road users?...

I would suggest that the key point underlying any measure of
'inattentional blindness' is that to some extent drivers choose not to
'see' a cyclist, especially in car dominated cultures such as the USA
and UK where such behaviour effectively is the social norm and drivers
know they will not be held to account. (In over 70% of cases where a
driver has run down a cyclist in the UK they claim the 'didn't see'
the cyclist...). I certainly don't think it is a genuine failing in
visual perception and I am sure if it was made quite clear that
drivers were expected to make much more effort to 'see' cyclists their
vision would improve...

I would suggest that if drivers really do suffer some form of
inattentional blindness this issue needs to be addressed with urgency.
The potential of a minimal 12 month driving ban for 'failing to see' a
cyclist would probably focus the drivers mind wonderfully. A driver
education program might also pay dividends if it spelt out messages
such as 'Don't pull out, that cyclist might be going faster then you
think' and similar.

All in all I would argue that the biggest reason so little progress
has been made in reducing the carnage on our roads is that so many are
willing to argue that drivers are not responsible for their actions.
Appeals to 'inattentional blindness' and similar are just one example.
Phrases such as 'the car went out of control rather then 'the driver
lost control', the use of the term 'accident' rather then 'crash', the
failure of courts to hold drivers account table even when they have
deliberately take risks with safety of others and so on are others.

Howard said:

Oh, they see you alright. However, they think either you will be doing
2MPH or that as a driver they have automatic priority and it is
entirely up to you to avoid being run down. This misconception is
supported by the courts who almost universally accept that claiming 'I
didn't see the cyclist' amounts to an automatic 'get out of jail free'
card, even when they have killed someone. Further the courts hold that
most drivers who kill or maim have simply suffered a 'momentary
lapse'. I.e. rather then being responsible for their own actions they
have been the unfortunate victim of fortune and as such may be
entirely absolved from any blame. Often this is still the case when
that 'momentary lapse' would be better described as quite wilful
dangerous driving. Perhaps if drivers knew that the faced something
more the a £100 fine for killing someone in such circumstances they
just might wait a moment longer to let you pass...

Indeed. The 'SMIDSY' is entirely a get out.

I must admit I was actually guilty of a silly act a couple of weeks ago.
I had completely misjudged the speed of a cyclist as I approached a
junction, and had thought there was enough room to overtake him and make
a left turn. He was actually travelling at a good speed, which totally
took me by surprise, and I only just missed him. Mind you, he didn't
make much effort to avoid the situation either. Had I hit him, I would
have been entirely to blame, but it wasn't a case of blatant ignoring
him, just a simple misjudgement.

--
Andy Hewitt ** FAF#1, (Ex-OSOS#5) - FJ1200 ABS
Honda Concerto 16v: Windows free zone (Mac G5 Dual Processor)
http://www.thehewitts.plus.com - now online

in message <[email hidden]>,

Chris Johns (') said:

And no I wasn't wearing a helmet - many people have "tutted" me for
this.

Ignore them. The whole issue is much too murky and tangled for simple
certainties. See helmet threads passim.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
Wannabe a Web designer?
<URL:http://userfriendly.org/cartoons/archives/97dec/19971206.html>

Howard said:

Speaking as someone who has a first class degree in Psychology I feel
it very important that we don't overstate the value of such research.

That's one of the most clearly stated posts I've read here in a long time.
Pat on the back.

"Howard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Speaking as someone who has a first class degree in Psychology I feel
it very important that we don't overstate the value of such research.
As with much psychological research what can be shown in an
experimental set up may have very little validity in the real world.

Also we need to give due regard to driver behaviour in other
circumstances where conspicuity is not an issue. For example, over 70%
of drivers will quite deliberately 'cut up' a cyclist at pinch point

any references for this?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

know they will not be held to account. (In over 70% of cases where a

driver has run down a cyclist in the UK they claim the 'didn't see'
the cyclist...

or refs for this?

References...

'It should normally be anticipated that at least 70% of drivers will
attempt to overtake a cyclist within or close to a 3.5m narrowing.'

http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_roads/documents/page/dft_roads_504706-02.hcsp

See also:

http://www.thebikezone.org.uk/thebikezone/campaigning/pinchpoints.html

I would have to go through my research reports to find the original
quote about the percentage of drivers who claim they 'did not' see a
cyclist they have run down. However, the following has much
interesting information on this topic. It also notes that almost all
conspicuity aids such as 'Sam Brown belts' have no impact at all on
driver behaviour. Also the claim that a full 'road menders' high
visibility jacket aids conspicuity is simply based on the finding
that drivers will give a cyclist wearing one a few more cm when
overtaking.

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/24/4/2103492.pdf

Another important point to note is that most attempts to increase
cyclist visibility have been ineffective as drivers then seem to take
even less effort to look out for them! Of course, this emphasis on the
potential victim taking action to 'protect' themselves via high
visibility clothing also means that any cyclist who fails to conform
can then be blamed if they are run down by a careless driver! The
worst example of this mentality is they way the motor lobby in the
1930's got the 'advice' included in 'The Highway Code' which tells
pedestrians to walk on the right hand side of the road, facing
traffic. Previously a driver going too fast for the conditions and
running a pedestrian down from behind might well be held responsible
(although they would be most unlikely to receive a serious penalty).
However, by getting this 'advice' into the 'Code motorists were able
to argue that pedestrians had an 'equal responsibility' to avoid being
run down and should simply 'get off the road', jumping into the
nearest ditch if necessary, should a speeding car hove into view from
around the next corner! (I recently saw a news report from the USA
where one politician was seeking to introduce an identical rule...for
cyclists!!!).

Similarly, in the 1930's the CTC opposed the use of rear lights on the
basis motorists should at all times drive at a speed that allows them
to stop in the distance they can actually SEE to be clear, with the
main burden of responsibility being on the faster, overtaking party.
When red lights came in the main effect was that motorists drove more
quickly, especially on country roads, on the assumption they would
spot a rear light in time for them to be able to take avoiding
action...

The extent to which motorists are willing to go to deny their
responsibility for taking proper observations and to drive at a speed
that allows them to stop well within the distance they can actually
SEE to be clear is sometimes staggering. There have even been cases
where drivers have successfully argued in court that the ‘high
visibility' yellow jacket worn by a cyclist they have run down and
killed made them ‘impossible to see' because it was a bright sunny
day and the sun is also yellow...

The bottom line is that any driver who fails to 'see' a cyclist in
normal lighting conditions, even when that cyclist is dressed in
'normal' clothing, is simply not taking the time to take proper
observations and is a danger who should be removed from the road.

Simon Brooke said:

in message <[email hidden]>,

Chris Johns (') said:

And no I wasn't wearing a helmet - many people have "tutted" me for
this.

Ignore them. The whole issue is much too murky and tangled for simple
certainties. See helmet threads passim.

I would be inclined to swear that not wearing a helmet saved his life ;-)

Tony

On 7 Jun 2004 10:48:24 -0700 someone who may be
[email hidden] (Howard) wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

All in all I would argue that the biggest reason so little progress
has been made in reducing the carnage on our roads is that so many are
willing to argue that drivers are not responsible for their actions.

Have you read, "Death on the Streets. Cars and the mythology of road
safety" by Robert Davis?

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.